Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learning Synths

learningsynths.ableton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 128 posts

Re: Learning Synths

#61

Post by bmitc »

shwaj wrote: post #54
bmitc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everything in audio processing is a filter, whether it's called a filter or not, but that's overly reductive. Synthesis is just creating audio from parts.

Delays aren’t filters.

That's not exactly true. In digital signal processing, delays and filters are effectively one in the same. This is because you implement digital filters using digital delays. For example, the simplest low-pass filter is just a summation of the current and previous sample: y(n) = x(n) + x(n-1).

Re: Learning Synths

#62

Post by weatherlight »

56j56n65u656 wrote: post #57
weatherlight wrote: post #30

If you want to understand (Subtractive) synthesis. The best way is to get copy of VCV rack and follow a few tutorials. If you patch one subtractive mono synth voice once, you understand 80% of all subtractive synth architecture moving forward. https://vcvrack.com (open source and wonderful) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35OhojjqDs Happy patching :) There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and…

Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly. If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST. Once you un…

I disagree... those "tedious fundamentals" is how all synths work, irregardless of synthesis type.

Watch the video. It's 15 minutes. I wish I could learn assembly in 15 minutes! You build the synth one module and one connection at a time all connected to an oscilloscope.

If I gave someone a SH-101 with no context, and let them noodle around with it and then asked them, to explain the architecture, they wouldn't be able to.

Sure, they may make some cool noises buy they wouldn't understand, what is what, why is hooked up to what and how that might differ on some other fixed architecture synth.

Re: Learning Synths

#63

Post by recursive »

criddell wrote: post #39
itishappy wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't. Computer keyboards are inexpressive. You'll be giving up the ability to modulate note velocity/volume, for starters. Get a cheap MIDI keyboard for a few hundred bucks. If instead of playing you're more interested in making cool sounds, I'd skip the keyboard completely and download a free DAW like Reaper, Ableton, or FL Studio. Whichever route you take, the secret is practice. It always is...

> Don't. Computer keyboards are inexpressive. Constraints can be a great thing.

Not this one. It would be like finger painting, except you have to wear mittens.

Re: Learning Synths

#64

Post by rambojohnson »

56j56n65u656 wrote: post #57
weatherlight wrote: post #30

If you want to understand (Subtractive) synthesis. The best way is to get copy of VCV rack and follow a few tutorials. If you patch one subtractive mono synth voice once, you understand 80% of all subtractive synth architecture moving forward. https://vcvrack.com (open source and wonderful) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35OhojjqDs Happy patching :) There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and…

Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly. If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST. Once you un…

OP actually gave pretty sound advice. maybe be a little more constructive next time and less edgelord.

Re: Learning Synths

#65

Post by recursive »

revskill wrote: post #14
criddell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say keyboard are you talking about a piano-type keyboard or a computer keyboard?

Computer keyboard .

I've been playing piano/keyboards for 35 years. I definitely don't play at a "professional" level, but I gig locally, and can play pretty well by ear, and in an ensemble. I'm not an amazing player, but I have enough experience to know something about what you're talking about.

What you're asking about is impossible. Not just difficult. You might be able to learn something about moving your fingers independently with rhythm on a computer keyboard. But at about the time you get to one week of experience, you'll probably be doing at least as much harm as good in terms of learning to play piano music on a computer keyboard. It is too different.

Partial list of problems:

  Size of keys
  Position of keys
  Number of keys
  Travel distance of keys
  Velocity sensitivity of keys
  Sufficiently low latency of audio output (can be solved with pro audio hardware)
To give one quick example of a deal-breaker, on a piano, you can comfortably, and in a neutral hand position, put your thumb and four fingers on 5 consecutive white keys. The layout of a computer keyboard doesn't allow for this at all.

Re: Learning Synths

#66

Post by webstrand »

56j56n65u656 wrote: post #57
weatherlight wrote: post #30

If you want to understand (Subtractive) synthesis. The best way is to get copy of VCV rack and follow a few tutorials. If you patch one subtractive mono synth voice once, you understand 80% of all subtractive synth architecture moving forward. https://vcvrack.com (open source and wonderful) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35OhojjqDs Happy patching :) There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and…

Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly. If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST. Once you un…

I actually really think that starting with assembly would be a great place for someone to start learning programming. But not x86 and not on a traditional PC. Instead using some microcontroller attached to a breadboard with a few simple peripherals like a keypad, simple LCD (or maybe an 8-segment).

The control-flow is obvious, the syntax is simple enough that novices shouldn't struggle with it, and writing directly to pins to control the peripherals gives immediate concrete feedback.

Re: Learning Synths

#67

Post by tarentel »

weatherlight wrote: post #62
56j56n65u656 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly. If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST. Once you un…

I disagree... those "tedious fundamentals" is how all synths work, irregardless of synthesis type. Watch the video. It's 15 minutes. I wish I could learn assembly in 15 minutes! You build the synth one module and one connection at a time all connected to an oscilloscope. If I gave someone a SH-101 with no context, and let them noodle around with it and then asked them, to explain the architecture, they wouldn't be ab…

While I agree that basically all subtractive synthesizers work the same way I started "learning" how they work when I was ~12. It wasn't until my mid 30s until I got into modular and I realized "hey all my synths are basically routed this way, neat." Has it changed the way I think about how I make a patch? Not at all. It is cool to know how they're architected but it in no way will really help you in learning how to use them so I agree with the comment you're replying to. Get an all in one synth and start making patches.

If you gave someone an SH-101 and explained to them how it was architected it wouldn't really help them make that signature acid bass sound so ya they'd be a little more knowledgeable on how synthesizers technically work but they still wouldn't be able to make any music with it. Whereas if I showed them how to make that bass sound they could now go try it on every other subtractive synth they run into even if it doesn't sound the same. Besides that, they'd learn how a lot of it works in a musical sense which is way more important to using synths than any technical knowledge will give you if you actually want to write music.

Re: Learning Synths

#68

Post by beAbU »

56j56n65u656 wrote: post #57
weatherlight wrote: post #30

If you want to understand (Subtractive) synthesis. The best way is to get copy of VCV rack and follow a few tutorials. If you patch one subtractive mono synth voice once, you understand 80% of all subtractive synth architecture moving forward. https://vcvrack.com (open source and wonderful) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35OhojjqDs Happy patching :) There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and…

Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly. If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST. Once you un…

Surge is incredibly complex and powerful and will be way overwhelming to a new user. They will be rediced to browsing the patch library not really understanding how things work.

With VCVRack and the right tutorial, a user will build a basic synth with an oscillator, filter, amp and envelope generator - which together make up the fundamental core of subtractive synthesis. The manual patching of modular is a great way to actually learn how these building blocks interact with one another to create sound.

Re: Learning Synths

#69

Post by beAbU »

chrisvalleybay wrote: post #10

I've been playing synths and piano for a while, but I've been struggling to get some solid intuitions about what is going on when I tweak the synths. One thing that really helped on this site, is the «dot» that is bouncing back and forth on https://learningsynths.ableton.com/en/playground . Try tweaking the nobs and see how the dots movement changes. It helped me visualize something that I wasn't able to grasp before…

Some VSTs animate the modulated controls, which is awesome because it immediately makes clear how one thing impacts another. I believe Serum does this?

Re: Learning Synths

#70

Post by b3orn »

weatherlight wrote: post #62
56j56n65u656 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly. If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST. Once you un…

I disagree... those "tedious fundamentals" is how all synths work, irregardless of synthesis type. Watch the video. It's 15 minutes. I wish I could learn assembly in 15 minutes! You build the synth one module and one connection at a time all connected to an oscilloscope. If I gave someone a SH-101 with no context, and let them noodle around with it and then asked them, to explain the architecture, they wouldn't be ab…

It's not how all synths work, probably the most famous FM synth the DX-7 never had a filter, additive synths don't really need filters either, but for a subtractive synth this would be unthinkable. And the general architecture of any synth is usually not that hard, you have a source, possibly filters, an amp and some modulators.
Post reply on HN